On Thu Jun 15, 2023 at 7:33 AM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Mon Jun 12, 2023 at 8:42 AM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> >> After previous changes the hypercall handling in 7xx and 74xx
> >> exception handlers can be folded into one if statement to simpilfy
> >> this code.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <bala...@eik.bme.hu>
> >> ---
> >> target/ppc/excp_helper.c | 26 ++++++++++----------------
> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
> >> index 4f6a6dfb19..089417894e 100644
> >> --- a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
> >> +++ b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
> >> @@ -738,26 +738,23 @@ static void powerpc_excp_7xx(PowerPCCPU *cpu, int
> >> excp)
> >> break;
> >> case POWERPC_EXCP_SYSCALL: /* System call exception
> >> */
> >> {
> >> - int lev = env->error_code;
> >> + PowerPCCPU *cpu = env_archcpu(env);
> >
> > I prefer to keep lev. Makes sense to combine the tests though
> > I suppose. Although with powernv it's not really clear that we
> > want to dump_syscall. dump_hcall is probably better (powernv
> > could support a non-PAPR hypervisor with different hcall
> > semantics, but also it could support an OS with different
> > syscall semantics too). I guess that could be changed back
> > when necessary though.
>
> What do you mean changed back? This is not supposed to change when
> dump_hcall and dump_syscall is called. However I've only changed the
> powerpc_excp_7xx() and powerpc_excp_74xx() functions where this is only
> present as a hack for VOF. I've left powerpc_excp_books() where hypercalls
> really exist unchanged because that takes other bits into accound so
> probably we can't combine the tests rhere.
Oh sorry I didn't notice it wasn't books.
Thanks,
Nick
